The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 (2014) – Review

Review: The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 is a bleak film, focusing more on character than action, setting up the franchise’s final installment.

The film finds Katniss Everdeen recovering in District 13 in the wake of the events of Catching Fire. She is distraught about Peeta’s capture by the Capital; however, Plutarch Heavensbee and President Alma Coin (the leader of the rebellion) desperately need her help. Right now is the moment of rebellion that District 13 has been waiting for, ever since their initial rebellion was quelled over seventy-five years ago. Katniss’s actions at The Hunger Games have inspired a nation. The rebels need her to be their symbol of revolt, inciting the nation to rise up together against the Captial.

First thing, let us call Mockingjay – Part 1 what it really is: a narrative and creative abomination in the name of additional profits (akin to splitting The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn into two parts even though the story does not really support two full narrative films). The Harry Potter series split its final book (The Deathly Hallows) into two films, starting this trend – the difference between The Deathly Hallows and Breaking Dawn and now Mockingjay, however, is that there was enough substantial story and character to make two films. Here there is not.

Calling the film an abomination is harsh. The problem is that the film essentially serves at the first act of the final chapter; yet, the filmmakers (including director Francis Lawrence) need to fill two hours with material, when really only about thirty to forty minutes is essential (or even needed). Thus, the film is primarily a showcase of the characters sitting around, grinding out time until the action really begins (in the next film). For the audience, this makes for a less than interesting film overall, but it still has its engaging moments.

The Deathly Hallows – Part 1 plays as much more of a character piece as compared to the continuous action of Part 2. Mockingjay – Part 1 tries to follow a similar path, as the narrative focuses on Katniss’s internal struggle with being the face of the rebellion, but there does not seem to be any narrative momentum. By comparison, part 1 of The Deathly Hallows saw Harry and company searching for horcruxes and the meaning of the Deathly Hallows. The film has a narrative structure and character development. It works as a standalone film (in as much as a sequel can), while also setting up the final film. Mockingjay – Part 1 is initially about Katniss becoming the face of the rebellion, which she does without much struggle. Then, the film seems to become about the recovery of Peeta. The problem with the second narrative piece is that Katniss is not involved in the action.

One of the big problems with this film series as a whole is that Katniss seems to always be sidelined. Even as the face of the rebellion, she is not directly involved in the rebellion planning or action. She is just propaganda. It might have been interesting for the film to really take a deep look at the emotional and psychological toll being a symbol takes on Katniss, being removed from the real action, just rolled out to make appearances for moral, seeing those actually fighting dying around her. It does this to a minor degree, and those moments are compelling; but, this was never going to be that kind of film – a character piece, built on performance and dramatic moments. Lawrence still wants to make a sci-fi action adventure, like the first two films, but there is just not that much for anyone to really do.

Structurally, Mockingjay – Part 1 has a number of things that do not work as well as they probably should. Right off, the film feels completely disconnected from Catching Fire, as if it were unrelated. The characters and tone are totally different. We learn that some period of time has passed between the end of Catching Fire and the beginning of Mockingjay, but it is very disorienting (especially because I just re-watched Catching Fire before seeing this). Lawrence certainly had the narrative time to transition the narrative to District 13, but instead the film begins clumsily. Lawrence also had the time to focus more on supporting characters, but no one is really given much to do dramatically. Katniss is the only character that has significant character moments (seeing the carnage that the Capital brought upon District 12 and her realization that Peeta was brutally tortured while being held in the Capital). Again, most of the film’s issues seem to arise from there not being enough to sustain a full narrative feature.

There are things that do work too. Katniss’s emotional moments are effective and even moving. Lawrence does a good job creating a world that looks and feels very bleak. District 13 is reminiscent of the style of the film 1984 (based on George Orwell’s novel) – it is a bit ironic that the rebels fighting for freedom seem to live in a highly structured world (seemingly void of real personal freedom and personality). The few moments of action are engaging as well. Lawrence even creates some tension when the team goes to retrieve the victors from the Capital.

Mockingjay is a sufficient setup for Mockingjay – Part 2, but it is bloated and does not work as a standalone film. Katniss is not even given a real dramatic journey in the film. Its biggest fault is that it feels overly long, slow and even boring in parts, because it is essentially a one act piece stretched to fill two hours. Lawrence does not do enough with the characters or feature enough action to fully engage the audience for the film’s runtime. Yet, all that said, the stage is set for Part 2, which seems like it will be a rewarding film experience (finally); and thus, Mockingjay – Part does ultimately serve its purpose (sloppily).

Now for something minor that I noticed that does not really effect the film’s overall quality at all, it just bugged me. The blocking of the film crew within the film (there to capture moments of Katniss reacting to stuff to use for the rebellion’s propaganda machine) is often fairly terrible. The cameramen are in each other’s shots. The director even walks in front of one of the cameramen at one point. They miss many crucial shots of Katniss emoting and in action (and so on). It is really no big deal; it just bothered me. They are touted as being the Capital’s best crew, but seemed incompetent.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Francis Lawrence made a good film with The Hunger Games: Catching Fire. With Mockingjay – Part 1, he is at a bit of a disadvantage, as it is clear there is not enough material to fill two films. That said, he does a good enough job (I guess). He gets good performances and the few action scenes work well. It is just disappointing that there is not more character moments to go around and that the film is not more efficiently structured (instead of feeling a bit tedious). I am looking forward to seeing Mockingjay – Part 2. I imagine it is much more action packed and that Katniss, finally, is involved in the primary action both emotionally and physically.

Aesthetically, Mockingjay – Part 1 is grim. The film mostly takes place in a somewhat soulless and barren bunker or amongst the rubble of destroyed towns. Jo Willems’s cinematography is fairly straightforward, working with Philip Messina’s production design to create this dreary world, seemingly almost void of color. It works narratively, but I miss the flare the first two films had in their design style. James Newton Howard’s score works well, supporting the dramatic moments (but it is overshadowed by the great soundtrack that Lorde put together).

The cast is good overall, but dramatically speaking there is very little for most of them to do. Natalie Dormer has her usual rambunctiousness about her, which works well with her character (the filmmaker Cressida). Elizabeth Banks has some fun moments as Effie, adjusting to a world without style and color. Sam Claflin is good as Finnick, seemingly playing a man broken by the games (though, it feels a bit out of character given where the audience left him in Catching Fire). Julianne Moore is very calm and calculating as President Alam Coin, very restrained. It works. Philip Seymour Hoffman seems a bit disinterested as Plutarch Heavensbee, probably because he has almost nothing of substance to do in the film. Donald Sutherland plays President Snow with a lot of flare and guile, enjoying the villainy of the character. Woody Harrelson, too, seems bored as he spends the film standing around, aside from a few lines of dialog. Liam Hemsworth probably has the most screen time in this film of any in the series so far, and yet he remains unengaging. Josh Hutcherson is quite good as Peeta, showcasing the mental and physical toll being a prisoner of the Capital is taking on him (he looks like he is dying, slowly wasting away). I just wonder why the film never gives Johanna (especially when you have Jena Malone, who is fantastic in the role) or Annie any screen time while they were captive (even if it were just in the background). It is an odd choice to single out Peeta as the only visible ‘traitor’, while leaving the others to merely be referred to as similarly traitors for doing the same thing. Filmmaking is about showing more than telling (or at least it should be). Jennifer Lawrence is very good as Katniss. She conveys the pain and internal struggle that she suffers through very well. It is clear that she is on the breaking point. (Much like the audience, I am sure) Katniss is tired of being left out. The film is moving in some places and ultimately succeeds dramatically solely because of her performance (as structurally it is pretty poor).

Summary & score: It is difficult to rate The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 because it is not really a narrative film (in that it does not really have its own story to tell or a complete character journey). It is merely just act one. Seemingly, it was never meant to be more. Thus, to really give this film a score I need to see how it plays in relation to Part 2, as presumably they are really two piece of one epic film. As it is, it only works insomuch as Jennifer Lawrence gives a very good performance, the action is engaging and some of the visuals are compelling. Large portions of the film, however, are uninteresting, as characters and viewers sit around waiting for the action to start. It was completely unnecessary for Mockingjay to be split into two films; thusly, this film exists solely to make additional money, not to serve a narrative need – and that is unfortunate for fans of the series. 5/10

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013) – Review

Review: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is entertaining, but feels incomplete. The film picks up where its predecessor The Hunger Games left off: Katniss Everdeen and Peeta Mellark won the 74^th Hunger Games, which has incited a swelling of rebellion in the twelve districts – especially those in constant strife. Katniss is now under pressure by the President to act her part and not encourage further revolution. But the president soon realizes that she is far too dangerous to live, as are the other former champions. Thus, for the 75^th Hunger Games, he decides that the tributes from each district will be made up of former winners, as a means to eliminate their threat to his power.

While I liked The Hunger Games overall, much of my problem with the film came from Katniss never really being faced with a truly difficult choice. Narratively and dramatically speaking, everything was just too easy for her (and on her). And more or less the same is true in Catching Fire. Katniss is still the main character, but much of the more interesting narrative elements seem to be taking place behind the scenes without her involvement or knowledge, which leaves the film feeling like just a basic remake of the first film (only, supposedly with higher stakes because this time all the tributes are trained killers).

Overall, Catching Fire does have more dramatically poignant moments, however. This is true particularly of Katniss’s visit to District 11 to pay tribute to Thresh and Rue. The relationships between characters feel more organic and steeped in reality than just emotionally dramatic for the sake of appealing to their targeted audience of youth adults (which has certainly grown substantially to include mostly all filmgoers). This is something that works well for the film. The audience actually cares about these characters this time around, which only heightens the tension throughout (though, the writers still clearly do not really know what to do with Gale and his relationship with Katniss – the audience sees them kiss and so on but really there is nothing of substance for them to care about in the actual narrative, while Katniss’s relationship with Peeta is much more developed and believable). In the first film, all the other tributes were also basically throwaway characters, with only Rue meaning anything – and that is solely due to Katniss caring about her. This time around, a number of the other tributes are actually given their own dramatic character moments that the audience can latch onto, take stock in, and relate to. Again, what works much better in this film is that outside of Katniss the audience is actually invested in other characters this time.

And yet Catching Fire cannot overcome its big story flaws to be something great. It is a good, entertaining adventure/action drama with a social message (which can be somewhat extrapolated in comparison to the world’s own current wealth distribution inequality). Katniss is a very likable character, even if she is basically left out of the primary narrative of the film. And that is the problem. Because Katniss is left out, so is the audience. Director Francis Lawrence does this because he wants the big reveal (that is not really that big a surprise for anyone actually paying attention) for Katniss to also play for the audience. Thus, the audience is saddled with pretty much the same film again: Katniss is a heartbroken tribute. She goes to the capital, where she is paraded around, trains, makes allies/enemies, all before being dropped into the arena to fight to the death. Lawrence does give the audience better and more exciting action this time (as he clearly also has a bigger budget and skill for the genre), but still the audience has already seen all this before in the last film.

Worst of all, just when the narrative starts to get interesting and Katniss is finally let in on the primary plot (which is all behind the scenes in the film, as the audience is fixed to Katniss’s perspective), the film ends. This leaves the film feeling frustratingly incomplete, as effectively Catching Fire is nothing but act one for the bigger narrative that plays out in Mockingjay – a big tease for better things to come. While Catching Fire is better in almost every way in comparison to The Hunger Games, at least that film has a satisfying narrative and character arc.

Narratively, Catching Fire is not a feature film, rather merely part one of a three part story structured similarly to a television miniseries.  It is common in Hollywood for series to be split into multiple films (often one story being split into two or even three films), but so far writers have done a good job structuring the breaks so that each part in a way tells its own story and the character(s) grow, develop, and change from beginning to end, while also having a goal or dramatic journey. Catching Fire seemingly has no real narrative structure – and if it does, it is essentially the same as the first film. The film essentially is about all the chess pieces being organized into their strategic positions in order to strike at their opponent, but then the film ends before they can make their move. And, on top of that, the audience is not even involved in their positioning; rather they sit on the sideline while things happen around them, only clued in once they are on the board (but by then, the film is over). Katniss’s dramatic struggle in the film (trying to survive yet another Hunger Games, while primarily trying to keep Peeta alive) is completely undermined by the reveal at the end, because really her struggle was just a place holder until the real narrative was ready to begin (which we will have to wait a year to see the first half of). This whole film could have easily been condensed into act one of the next film (book) because that is essentially what it is. Therefore, while the action is bigger, the stakes higher (I guess), and so on, the narrative that the audience is a part of is boring (as they have already watched this film last time), plus Katniss does not really have a character arc (because she is essentially sidelined). The viewer is only engaged because of their investment in Katniss and she is in peril, but again from a story perspective this leaves a lot to be desired and is almost wholly unsatisfying (as a standalone film).

Now, in the scheme of the whole series, Catching Fire might end up working quite well as a companion piece to the Mockingjay films, but as a standalone film it just does not have a strong enough narrative to warrant its existence, at least in the framework of a narrative feature film. And yet, it is entertaining and enjoyable for what it is and it does leave the audience ready and excited for what comes next – and therefore one could say it does its job.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: What a difference a director makes. The Hunger Games presents a strong female character in Katniss and a compelling idea of a society that celebrates the spectacle of its youths fighting to the death, but Gary Ross took this material and delivered a rather dull film that is really only good due to its lead actress and the strength of its story and world. Francis Lawrence does a much better job with the look and action. Catching Fire is much more fluid and exciting, if only it had a strong narrative too. Despite its flaws, it very well might be Lawrence’s best film (edging out Constantine and I Am Legend). I do look forward to seeing what he does with the finale two films, which likely will actually feature a full story and a real dramatic arc for Katniss.

Composer James Newton Howard already had a strong foundation with his music for The Hunger Games, thus his work on Catching Fire was more or less already done for him. Some composers take their music to new heights with each sequel (like Hans Zimmer with his phenomenal The Dark Knight Rises score), while others rest on their laurels. Howard’s score for Catching Fire works well with the drama on screen, and thus does what it needs to do, but it does not really bring anything dynamic or new to the film (and yes, Howard did work with Zimmer on Batman Begins and The Dark Knight scores). Meanwhile, the soundtrack inspired by the film is probably better this time around. Production designer Philip Messina again does good work on the film, which takes full advantage of the stark juxtaposition between the poorer districts and the rich Capital. Costume designer Trish Summerville also does standout work. In taking over for Ross, Lawrence brought in cinematographer Jo Willems, who provides a much richer look for the film (accentuating what appear to be greater production values).

Catching Fire also features what feels like a much better, fuller cast this time around, especially in the smaller supporting roles. As far as returning supporting characters, Stanley Tucci and Elizabeth Banks are again fun in their outlandish roles, but this time they get to play with some emotion as well. Donald Sutherland does a good job playing what is essentially a snarling role as the President. Despite his appearance, he seems menacing. While barely in the film, Willow Shields actually has some strong moments as Katniss’s sister Primrose. Liam Hemsworth has the difficult job of playing a character with no development – Gale – who exists seemingly to be handsome and likable. Woody Harrelson is very good as Haymitch, but as he is primarily involved in the main behind the scenes plot that is kept secret from Katniss (and the audience, though poorly) he has little screen time. There is a lot of good work from the new faces. Patrick St. Esprit is strong as a ruthless soldier (in a very small role). Amanda Plummer plays crazy in an ‘I am actually really smart’ way quite well, while Jeffrey Wright plays smart in a fun annoyed genius sort of way. Jena Malone is fantastic as Johanna Mason, a former champion who feels very put out by having to compete again and is not afraid to vocalize it. She, more so that most of the other former champions (that are not just balls of muscles), actually is able to be very intimidating without seeming physically imposing. Sam Claflin is strong as Finnick, as he is able to play things close to the vest. The audience is not really sure if he is a hero or villain (even at the end, when it seems clear). Much like Harrelson, Philip Seymour Hoffman who just commands the screen is desperately short on screen time, because he is involved in the more interesting narrative that audience is not involved in (but will likely play a bigger role in the upcoming films). Josh Hutcherson is much better this time around. His Peeta seems to have discovered himself and is not afraid to actually try and put himself out there. His acting was timid in the last film, he seems much more confident, allowing himself to actually take on a character this time. Jennifer Lawrence is again the main reason that the film succeeds on any level. She brings so much to Katniss. The audience seems to forget that this is just a film and Katniss is not real. She plays her so naturally that it feels like Katniss is a real girl facing horrors, which pulls the audience in and has them glued to the screen.

Summary & score: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is better in almost every way to its predecessor, but it is also essentially the same film rehashed again with the far more interesting narrative played behind the scenes and left for later films in the series. 7/10

The Hunger Games (2012) – Review

Review: The Hunger Games is exciting with both an interesting story and socially relevant overtones, but much of the dramatic tension is lost due to the narrative being too easy on its main character Katniss Everdeen. The film is about Katniss, a young girl from a poor, predominately coil-mining District 12 (taking place in a future North America called Panem) who volunteers for the Hunger Games to save her sister who is chosen (the Hunger Games is an annual event that see two young people volunteer or randomly chosen, one girl one boy, who much fight till death until only one remains). The overlying world that the story takes place in sees a stark difference between the wealthy Capitol (where everyone looks like huge David Bowie glam fans circa 1972 and everything is decadent and frivolous) and District 12 where many struggle just to make ends meet. The juxtaposition of these two places plays metaphorically as a comparison (in a way) between places with severe poverty, starvation, oppression and the debilitating effects of war or tribal/group in-fighting and how they perceive those that are well-off (which is America in many cases). As the story is told through the perspective of Katniss, who is from such a place of extreme poverty, it makes complete sense that director Gary Ross would present the Capitol in the manner that he does (all silliness and lust for blood) – it harkens back to the Roman Republic and its pension for slaves fighting in the arena for entertainment. Ross’s visual contrast between District 12 and the Capitol is also very evident and works well – the Capitol is bright, clean and colorful, while District 12 is very plain, dirty and almost void of color. Ross handles the action well (though not great) given the film is only rated PG-13 (when it probably could have been R, and maybe should have been to get across more the sheer intensity and reality of what these characters are being asked to do and what they do inflict upon each other – the film does show some violence, but shies away from the more raw and frightening nature of these characters and themes; there is nothing as vivid as Piggy’s death in Lord of the Flies for example), which allows the narrative to be thrilling in places and pull viewers into the story. Really, the visual portrayal of the world in which the story takes place is Ross’s finest achievement in the film. However, he does falter with his narrative structure and characters, which does hold this back from being a wonderful sci-fi action drama. Narratively speaking, Ross is very inefficient, leaving the pacing very slow at times. Many scenes drag on too long and character moments are missed or not utilized to their best effect. While much of the film is spent developing Katniss (which is a good thing), the audience is still not given enough to really know her and her motivations (aside from outwardly superficial veiled ploys). The audience is not quite in tune with what she is thinking, leaving her emotions at the end unclear (and while I realize they are unclear to her as well, the viewer is not given enough to know that she actually is torn at all, or that she is just playing a game and character within the Hunger Games – it is not clear because the connection with the audience is just not there, and that is on Ross as the performance is quite good). It would have also been nice to get to know the other main competitors as well instead of only stereotyped narrative roles. Peeta, the other tribute for District 12, has some character development, but his motivations seem so all over the map that he is dramatically untrustworthy, and thus hard to connect with as well. The novel is the basis for the film, but should not be a prerequisite to know the characters (that is just sloppy filmmaking, as the two are entirely separate). The biggest issue however is with how easy the narrative makes it for Katniss. She is never faced with any tough choices. Volunteering to save her sister was easy, as that is what her character would do and it is heroic. The competitors she does play a role in killing are all deemed ‘evil’ by the narrative. It would have been far more interesting to the narrative and her character if she had to make an authentically difficult decision (like killing an innocent, or choosing between living and a friend). Plus, anytime she is in trouble, the narrative helps her out. She never has to get her hands dirty or survive at the dire moment on her own (and I found it very frustrating and disappointing from a character perspective; as this narrative seems to be ineffectual). Katniss is essentially the same person at the end of the game; she just knows how to play it better. The Hunger Games is visually and thematically very engaging and Katniss is a strong heroine, but the narrative and character development lack true visceral impact (which is really too bad).

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Having seen Gary Ross’s other two films (Pleasantville and Seabiscuit), it is hard to make the connection between this and those two films as being from the same director. The Hunger Games tonally and stylistically are much different (Seabiscuit is essentially just a throwaway sappy manipulative Hollywoodized drama, while Pleasantville is an interesting look at the change in American values and the American family from the 1950s to the 1990s, while also serving as an allegory for the struggle for civil rights). Ross shoots The Hunger Games with brilliant photographer Tom Stern to be very gritty using a steadicam style (the pseudo-documentary shaky-cam style), evoking the feeling of being in the action, while his past work has a much more classically clean and standard visual style. And, while there are social analogies to today’s world in this film, they are only superficially touched on (though I suspect that they will be explored further in the subsequent films). At its heart, this is a character piece, but Ross does not quite get the dramatic moments right. The music by T-Bone Burnett (who produced the film’s accompanying soundtrack) and the score by James Newton Howard work well as accompaniment to the visual experience (the Mockingjay theme is quite good and memorable – which is fairly critical for big franchises, think of John Williams’s themes for Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park, Harry Potter and so on as the top-end examples). Back to cinematographer Tom Stern, his work is very good along with production designer Philip Messina. The visual contrast and color palette between District 12 and the Capitol (expanded on above) is striking, and sets up all the emotional and social over and undertones for the narrative and characters. The film features a lot of characters, many of which do not receive ample attention. That said, Willow Shields, Amandla Stenberg, Donald Sutherland, and especially Woody Harrelson are very good in support. Josh Hutcherson is good as Peeta (though his character is a bit emotional frenetic), and he does have some chemistry with his co-star. Jennifer Lawrence, who was already a budding star for her critically acclaimed work in Winter’s Bone, is now a huge star with her performance as Katniss. Despite her character not being given dynamic dramatic moments (which are generally key for great cinematic characters and performances), she is very good in the role, playing her to be vulnerable but also resilient, smart and good at putting up a guise of fake emotions.

Summary & score: While there is a lot to like from The Hunger Games (both narratively and from the characters), it fails to create authentically powerful dramatic moments for its principal characters. 7/10